Lucky...

Still didn't address the issue, you've posted that tired one many times. Here's a new one for laughs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTyEQdO25Us

It is you who is unanware of Edwards, all you are details via cliche from Limbaugh and the likes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Legal_career Edwards sued, via his clients several corporations who acted with negligence, it is all stated in the article. Again, you glossd over my point, but if you don't kepp corporations, doctors, etc in check they will do what is cheapest; you have to make negligence expensive. Another concept over your head: corporations weigh out the cost of doing business and if it's cheaper to do so with dangers via negligence they will do so, evenif they have to pay fines. If it is believed to be more expensive to act irresponsibly, they usually will not do so. You live under this pie-in-the-sky idea that corporations have a conscience, which has been disproven constantly, yet you cling to it. Edward's biggest award and the biggest award in NC history was the sta-rite pool drain lawsuit where the drain was designed in such a way that a little girl was disemboweled. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. That is called gross negligence and in your world you would have corporate immunity and more little girls having their intestines sucked out thru the pool pump/drain. So you take an area of his practice and make that the moniker for his entire career when it was 1 avenue. My friend, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. But let's explore your claim. In 1985, Edwards represented a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarean delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. So this doctor operated outside normal parameters and caused a person to have CP as a result and now he's a bad guy? And it is alos known that many doctors prefer to deliver C-section due to it being more $$$ in their poskets as well. What the truth is is that the evidence from the operating room will surface and IF a doctor acts with malpractice, he/she will pay. If a C-section is performed and wasn't prudent, if a damage occurrs that doctor will be sued.

Which is why you are unable to illustrate why.

Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES. Dude, it aint worth responding too. I thought you might get that by now This is called a nom-response. Do you ever look in the mirror and say, "I just can't refute that, therefore I have a postion that is unsupportable?" Of course not, but when you reply with a non-response everyone else gets it. Go back and respond if you can. As I said but will modify Your post is so absurd there is no reason to respond As I said, you are unable to defend your position; we get it.

Antsy? No, considering I'm one of the many intelligent people who voted for Obama and didn't expect him to flip a switch over night and magically fix everything. A year is really not that long in the grand scheme of things. All in due time my friends, all in due time. Let the man have ample time to prove himself one way or the other. What exactly is "ample time," you might ask? Well, I am not certain but I am certain it is not 1 year, IMO. It took Saint Ronald Reagan well over a year to reverse his recession. Yep, tax cuts and retracting the money supply was brilliant, it took a stagnant economy and turned it into a brief but bad recession. Once the "borrowed" billions hit the market that was repaired, of course the worst debt increase in peacetime was realized.

Besides "Blame Bush", you mean? Bush should only be blamed for things that started under his watch. Like the recession and 2 wars. Wrong Bush You were talking GHWB, Mike piped in with his usual non-repsonsive GWB remarks, so Kallend was addressing the Bush Mike proposed. No one says blame GHWB, as he was a very good president and descent man, war hero, etc.

Besides "Blame Bush", you mean? Bush should only be blamed for things that started under his watch. Like the recession and 2 wars. Makes a great scapegoat for y'all, though - "Obama's waging war on Wall Street because of BOOOOOOOSH!" That also means that tripling the deficit is all Obama...about time he took responsibility for SOMEthing. So the stimulus is Obama's fault? Mike, just answer it w/o refering me somewhere else if you have the ability to do so.

A slimebag politician worries about his reelection, a true statesman worries about the people.

- After 1 year of a 4-year term he's done? - The economy has moved wonders, GDP amazing, unemp bottomed, stock market way ahead of schedule - The really dumb thing about the GHWB criticism levied by many is that he did a great job with the economy, he: raised taxes after fascist Ronnie cut them to shreds leading to a massive deficit flurry, cut spending, esp military when fascist Ronnie slammed them, inherited the recession from his predecessor. - You forget about GWB's 1st term agenda: fucking working people via the Overtime Bill. It needed 60 votes or 2/3rds (can't recall), enough Dems held out, but then rolled after 3 years of Bush badgering. I think HC is dead in a fascict nation, but they thought the OT Bill was dead many times too. Shows what a bunch of assholes the American voter is, after shoving the OT Bill thru, engaging in a BS war, hammering the debt, GWB was reelected. - GHWB was a great president presiding over a country of idiots who think that taxes can be cut forever. During the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's the highest tax brkt was no less than 70% and as high as 94% and things went pretty well considering we had WWII, Korea, and VN. Fascist pig Ronnie came along and cut them to 50%, 38% and then 28% and teh American voter thinks that is sustainable. GHWB's only error was not knowing he presided over a countyr of dreamers who don't understand the reality of taxes. Furthermore, virtually all people who were dismayed over his tax increase from 28% to 31% were largely unaffected by it, yet they used that as fodder by which to 'unelect' him. - Obama is doing a very good job, love how you stick the dagger in 1 year into his term w/o any scandalous ammunition by which to based that on.

I like nuclear. I do too, but why be linnear rather than diversify?

Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES. Dude, it aint worth responding too. I thought you might get that by now This is called a nom-response. Do you ever look in the mirror and say, "I just can't refute that, therefore I have a postion that is unsupportable?" Of course not, but when you reply with a non-response everyone else gets it. Go back and respond if you can.

Yea, the House' bill was with a public option and mandatory ins, which is ok if they are both present. But the senate, thx to just a couple of the 60 dropped the public option and held the mandation. Yep, all 60 weren't great, only took 1 to undo virtually all of the other 59.

I did http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=142088 - thx for being pro tem pseudo moderator

There, fixed it Of all the posts I've read from you, most are unsibstantiated, but this is by far the most 'out there' one I've read. Please, oh please how is Edwards the sole or even partial cause for high C-section costs? That is laughable. As a husband he's a bad one, as a statesman he's for workers, for the people via his acts. W/o littigation corporations would take that last thread away from the people and their lack of any conscience would be put into play. I don't expect you to understand teh concept that littigation/sanction is all that makes corporations act right.

I dunno, how many shithouse stalls are spattered with Larry Craig's seamen? This IS a partisan rant even tho it may not have been written that way originally. But the parties to have expected behaviors, like the Dems being womanizers, the R's being election cheaters, etc..... I just don't see adultery as a heinous act, whereas I do see an exclusive society as such.

Me, I've cheated, so I won't stand in judgment. But when your wife has cancer it certainly ups the ante of the bet that you're an asshole. Oh well, that's how Jebus (joke) wired us. Really, the human animal is not intended to be monogomous I don't believe, as per nature.

Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." You have used this more than once Funny shit OK, so it isn't still true? Your response shows your inability to respond. Here, try again, this time, address the merits. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC." If Joe Blow can't afford HC in his state, will dropping state lines and possibly, maybe saving him 10% make it possible to now afford it? Why don't the connies just drop the BS and say how they feel: THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THISE W/O HC INSURANCE, EVEN IF IT'S THEMSELVES.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22 According to the SCOTUS, a corporation is a person. 1886 decision. I think that's what spurred the great Teddy Roosevelt to be so pro-consumer protections. Of course that's before the Republicans became fascist, corporatist scum.

Wind, solar and other energies do exist, are you saying you don't agree with the expansion of these? Petro energy has to go or be limited.

No, for making their crappy version of the HC bill. Dude, they're going to get voted out of office for not tackling the obstacles in the economy and wasting a year on this bill to begin with. The market has turned around, the GDP is waaaay + and unemp is bottomed in 1 year; how long did fascist Ronnie take to flip the mess? 3-4 years? Hell, even Clinton spent his whole 1st term fixing fascist Ronny's mess. Obama laid too much hope out there which led to dreams of a 2-week fix. The reality is that Obama and his stimulus has done wonders.

Let's see what happens once ten or so more senators are voted out of office. There are always a few senators voted out of office. I doubt the number will be as high as 10 in 2010. But traditionally, Congressional elections don't go very well for a President's party in the sophomore year of his administration. If that holds true in 2010 - and my spidey sense tells me that may happen - then the net gain in the Senate will probably be Republican - and that means the Senate will not liberalize its health care bill after the elections. That would only be able to happen if the net electoral gain in the Senate is overwhelmingly Democratic; and I just don't think that's very likely. Agreed but, the depth of the change will hinge more on the economy than HC I think Economy turns around, the damage to the Dem majority will be minimal. If it does not, well, it will look like Mass on a national scale If you dream that the R's will gain control of the senate, pass that joint this way. The biggest problem for the dems is that the Great Republican recession didn't happen 1 year earlier and things went to teh gutter sooner, lasted longer and went waaaay deeper. Obama jumped in with his stimulus and saved the day, so he took blame for spending rather than credit for saving. Either way, there are still idiots out there who think FDR trippled taxes and that he didn't do an amazing job saving the country. Of course there are also Holocaust deniers too.

Let's see what happens once ten or so more senators are voted out of office. There are always a few senators voted out of office. I doubt the number will be as high as 10 in 2010. But traditionally, Congressional elections don't go very well for a President's party in the sophomore year of his administration. If that holds true in 2010 - and my spidey sense tells me that may happen - then the net gain in the Senate will probably be Republican - and that means the Senate will not liberalize its health care bill after the elections. That would only be able to happen if the net electoral gain in the Senate is overwhelmingly Democratic; and I just don't think that's very likely. Agreed, but wouldn't that throw the R's on their ass if the Dems gained 3 or 4 seats and could fasttrack HC thru? Not counting on it, I think teh Dems lose a net 2 to 3 seats.

Right, and that was with a Dem congress. It's in teh fabric of the toilet we call the USA.

Politically, it simply won't happen. For all intents and purposes, when the Senate cobbled together its version, thanks to Leiberman being the swing vote to axe the public option, the Senate was effectively rejecting the House version. The Senate's not about to go back on that; and plenty of members of the House are damned if they'll vote for a bill that guts the core principles of their version. Neither chamber will accept the other's bill, or is there any chance the two bills can be reconciled in a conference committee. End of story. 100% exactly. It's not that the House is disinterested in true reform, they just don't want garbage reform so they will reject the garbage the senate handed back. RWers think teh House is tired of the issue, fact is they don't want pseudo-reform. I agree, I hope they kill it, otherwise this will be considered successful reform for the next 50 years when in fact the senate version is a boost for American fascist corporations with the insuran ce mandate. No way in hell a mandate can be passed w/o a public option.

Nope. Maybe you're not paying attention, but the last three big elections held in the past three months are indicators that folks aren't interested in Congressional solutions to health care. There are two very large pink elephants in the room, one is named "Economy" and the other is named "War". Glad you're keeping up with current events. Even if they did start over again, there's no way a "House" version would pass the Senate, and there are about 40 democrats in the House that weren't interested in the Senate version. Even under Clinton when he tried to urge congress to write HC reform, there was no war and the economy was recovering from a much more mild recession they gave him nothing. It's in the American fabric to say fuck others, that is what drives the HC mess, that's what drives us spending 8 times that of #2 on the military and ignoring important things. This has nothing to do with any one election in any year, hell, even if teh Dems had 60 represenatives in the senate as they did in the 60's, think they had 67, all they could get thru was Medicare, not HC for the masses. Listen: this is in the fabric of this toilet nation.